One should never have to justify a personal freedom. So long as it is not infringing upon the right of another it should be inherent. If you wish, you're free to attempt to justify why it should be removed.

I concede this point. I guess I don't have a problem with idiots abusing drugs and killing themselves in the process - no sympathy from me here.

Quote:

The point is (obviously) not which does more harm. Even furthermore we are not strictly talking about heroin but recreational drugs in general. Why don't you compare it to the inherent harm in consuming THC once a week? The point is, even as the US national deficit is well over $1 trillion, and states are having to borrow money to pay for things like teachers and fire departments and law enforcement, we are spending over $50 billion a year and that's on law enforcement alone, not counting prison costs and upkeep. And what have we accomplished with such a policy? We've created a an underworld where gangs, thugs, and mafia thrive, and get rich off the sale drugs. Anyone who wants it can still get it whenever they want, either with money, or violence. It's counter-productive and quite frankly a waste of taxpayer money.

You mentioned heroin in your original post so I was running with that. Sorry what's THC? You were comparing stopping someone from taking heroin (again, using the example in your original post) to telling someone what movie to watch on a Saturday night and saying that the former would, via a slippery slope, lead to the latter. I was merely pointing out how the two situations are falsely analogous.

Quote:

Listen, I'm not encouraging drug use and I don't use them myself except for alcohol -- I just don't want my government holding my hand, telling me what I can and can't do, and adding to the national and state debt in the process in futile, abortive, self-righteous attempts to stop it. I find that much more morally repugnant.

It sounds to me like your objection to making drugs illegal stems from the counter-productive effects it's had in the US with some liberal ideals thrown into the mix. All I'm saying is that criminalisation on ALL drugs has worked in other countries; and it's for this reason, and the fact that I am beyond thankful to live in a relatively safe society, that I have to put aside my liberal beliefs and defer to my authoritative government on this matter. Perhaps legalisation of some recreational drugs with strict regulation would work better in the US, but I definitely do not want to see it happening in my own country.

tripwires, I think the situation in Singapore is a bit artificial due to the harsh and, frankly, inhumane punishments. No one should be punished that severely on drug abuse. It's the same as having a capital punishment on obesity in order to solve the obesity epidemic...

If the legislation is changed to a more lenient one, some drugs will likely follow. However are you prepared to have such a legislation in order to keep the society drug-free? It's a harsh deal and, in my opinion, downright infringes human rights.

__________________After Nadal beat Monfils at Doha, before AO 2014

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

lol, who will beat him? Wawrinka? Berdych? Gulbis? Rosol? Federer?

Only Del Potro can take him out before the semis, and he won't. Nadal is winning the AO, bet your house on it.

Somewhere out there, there is a homeless person who once took betting advice from GSMnadal

tripwires, I think the situation in Singapore is a bit artificial due to the harsh and, frankly, inhumane punishments. No one should be punished that severely on drug abuse. It's the same as having a capital punishment on obesity in order to solve the obesity epidemic...

If the legislation is changed to a more lenient one, some drugs will likely follow. However are you prepared to have such a legislation in order to keep the society drug-free? It's a harsh deal and, in my opinion, downright infringes human rights.

Actually, the punishment for consumption for first-time offenders is a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment and/or a fine of maximum $20,000. The mandatory death penalty is for trafficking certain types of drugs over a certain limit as stated in the Act and for "lesser" trafficking offences the punishment is jail and caning. I don't agree with these two punishments at all.

In my opinion, the human rights issue enters the picture insofar as we're talking about the punishments for trafficking: the mandatory death penalty is definitely incommensurate with the crime; further, the mandatory death penalty and arguably caning are cruel and unusual punishments. To this extent, I agree with you that our laws are unduly harsh.

That said, I don't believe that the death penalty has a general deterrent effect on any crime and while it may have a limited deterrent effect on drug trafficking in Singapore, I honestly do not believe that removing it as punishment for trafficking would lead to an increased inflow of drugs to Singapore. Same goes for caning. The infrastructure is already in place and it is relatively sound; the main problem with it is the inhumane punishments. One could argue that they are the reason Singapore is generally drugs-free but I definitely have my doubts on the actual deterrent effects of the death penalty.

Also, unlike the death penalty, the jail term for consumption is discretionary (unless the offender is a repeat offender). Sometimes the court sentences an accused drug abuser to reformative training instead of jail, depending on the circumstances. So yeah, we're not murdering drug addicts here, just the traffickers...

I concede this point. I guess I don't have a problem with idiots abusing drugs and killing themselves in the process - no sympathy from me here.

There are a multitude of illegal drugs that can be used without being abused and without killing yourself. Even so there's a multitude of legal means destroy yourself like eating yourself to oblivion, you gonna have a crusade against cholesterol next? Furthermore I can have compassion for my fellow man without the government being my brother's keeper -- I know that's a radical idea.

Just out of curiosity what is the status of alcohol in Singapore? Something that is vastly more damaging and addicting to the human body than Marijuana.

Quote:

You mentioned heroin in your original post so I was running with that. Sorry what's THC? You were comparing stopping someone from taking heroin (again, using the example in your original post) to telling someone what movie to watch on a Saturday night and saying that the former would, via a slippery slope, lead to the latter. I was merely pointing out how the two situations are falsely analogous.

THC is the principle psychotropic agent in marijuana. As to your latter issue, the point is that when one freedom is removed it becomes that much easier to remove others via precedence -- that should be easy enough to understand. Once again, I wasn't comparing heroin, specifically to watching movies. Stop clinging to that red herring -- I'm talking about the ability to act as you wish provided you aren't infringing upon the rights of others. It could just as easily be a few friends getting together and smoking a joint to relax.

Quote:

It sounds to me like your objection to making drugs illegal stems from the counter-productive effects it's had in the US with some liberal ideals thrown into the mix. All I'm saying is that criminalisation on ALL drugs has worked in other countries; and it's for this reason, and the fact that I am beyond thankful to live in a relatively safe society, that I have to put aside my liberal beliefs and defer to my authoritative government on this matter. Perhaps legalisation of some recreational drugs with strict regulation would work better in the US, but I definitely do not want to see it happening in my own country.

My objections should've been abundantly clear in the last few posts and they are multifold, there's no need to type them out again and no need for you to try and wrap them in a nice cute bubble. Obviously we have a fundamental philosophical difference on the boundary between freedom and security and that's fine, there's more than two right ways to live -- provided you (and your people) are happy with how you're living.

Just as an aside, don't you think your society is "relatively safe" for reasons beyond the scope of drug control? For reasons the vast majority of other people would probably not be ok with?

You can avoid all the lung cancer issues by taking THC in other ways. Like eating it in cookies/cakes .

I used to make brownies. They were so tasty and I had some of my best ever highs after eating them. I remember one time I ate some and was defrosting a freezer - it felt like I was on an expedition to the arctic

So we're smarter, better, and more capable of rational decision than the populace? You have a mighty high opinion of MTF posters, then. To your latter point -- it's a slippery slope, when you take away one freedom, it becomes much easier to take away others. What if someone goes out, watches a movie, then commits violence. Should the movie be banned? Should controls be put in about who goes sees what, when, where? It's been discussed before.

being forced to drink in one of three cages at Melbourne's 2009 Big Day Out because myself and my Australian creed could not be trusted to consume alcohol while watching Neil Young or The Prodigy up close was perhaps the day my heart broke the most... without a doubt... after 6 years of life abroad, what had my country become...?

it is a slippery slope...

this scenario of course brought about by the inability of a large scale event to secure public liability insurance... so, to secure the insurance certificate 'the drinking' was segregated... you could drink, but you needed to consume in a cage...

how does this sort of infringement of civil liberties come about...? a litigious society that has lost it's common sense...

the point is this: shit is gonna happen no matter how much you wanna protect against it... there is gonna be risk in anything, especially in some fun stuff... so why not re-employ a bit of common sense and give that responsibility back to the people... because protecting a population by building a cage for them to do harm to only themselves is by far a more saddening occurrence than missing half an event because of legendary levels of intoxication....

well, I wouldn't start injecting brown powder but if I could go into my local pharmacy and buy a quality high-grade opiate then fuck yeah, I'm giving that a try.

Yeah, I feel this. At least once.

Similar to how I was when I did cocaine the first time. I did it, didn't enjoy it, and haven't touched it since.

I think if more people are educated and actually experience it and realize what it is all about, people can make their decisions. Part of the problem of outlawing things is that it adds an element of "danger" to it, which makes people want to do it even more. If it is legal and out in the open, people may try it once, realize what's going on, and make their own informed decisions.